OT: One Laptop per Child - VMS

This is a discussion on OT: One Laptop per Child - VMS ; Right now, Linux is being used for the "One Laptop per Child" projects around the world. Microsoft, not wanting to be left out, has setup a team of 40 people trying to fit Windows and office on 1gig (they can't) ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 76

Thread: OT: One Laptop per Child

  1. OT: One Laptop per Child

    Right now, Linux is being used for the "One Laptop per Child" projects
    around the world.

    Microsoft, not wanting to be left out, has setup a team of 40 people
    trying to fit Windows and office on 1gig (they can't) so now they will
    pay for flash cards and the hardware needed to be added on the cheap
    laptops, and they still are having problems fitting the bloat that is
    Windows onto those cards. And they will also need to update the laptop's
    firmware to support booting from the additional flashcards.

    Just imagine if many years ago, VMS management had listened to Mr
    Dachtera and ported VMS to the then 32 bit 8086. Today, they could load
    VMS on those laptops with space to spare simply because VMS engineers
    have always been fairly mature, efficient and frugal in system resources
    needed to run their software. It would have paid off big time if VMS had
    been selected to be the OS of choice for those laptops all around the
    world. (put in Mosaic, update MAIL and DECWRITE and you're set).

    It, way too late now, of course.

    But it is interesting to see Microsoft struggle with this and hopefully
    they will fail and millions of kids around the world will learn Linux first.

  2. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > Right now, Linux is being used for the "One Laptop per Child" projects
    > around the world.
    >
    > Microsoft, not wanting to be left out, has setup a team of 40 people
    > trying to fit Windows and office on 1gig (they can't) so now they will
    > pay for flash cards and the hardware needed to be added on the cheap
    > laptops, and they still are having problems fitting the bloat that is
    > Windows onto those cards. And they will also need to update the laptop's
    > firmware to support booting from the additional flashcards.
    >
    > Just imagine if many years ago, VMS management had listened to Mr
    > Dachtera and ported VMS to the then 32 bit 8086. Today, they could load
    > VMS on those laptops with space to spare simply because VMS engineers
    > have always been fairly mature, efficient and frugal in system resources
    > needed to run their software. It would have paid off big time if VMS had
    > been selected to be the OS of choice for those laptops all around the
    > world. (put in Mosaic, update MAIL and DECWRITE and you're set).
    >
    > It, way too late now, of course.
    >
    > But it is interesting to see Microsoft struggle with this and hopefully
    > they will fail and millions of kids around the world will learn Linux first.


    Quite so, but it wouldn't have been too much of an effort to convert
    e.g. the VAXstation 4000-VLC into a laptop case. There was about
    everything needed on a main board with only one daughter card (the
    graphichs card). If the SIMM sockets would have been inclined, it would
    have been ready for putting into a laptop case.
    I think it would have been better to make a VAX laptop than trying to
    fit VMS on every other possible hardware combination. That would never
    have made it worth while. There is way too much work and the result
    would be too uncertain.

    In mid 90's there was built a AlphaBook, as you surely know, but for
    some reason it never became popular. IMHO the reason was exactly what
    you mentioned; VMS vas not made available early enough on laptops.

    Regards,

    Kari


  3. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    The alphabook was a wonderful thing and really expensive. It cost the
    same as a VMS workstation at the time and I think people bought VMS
    workstations instead.

  4. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    In article <475a7ef1$0$27828$9b536df3@news.fv.fi>,
    Uusimäki writes:
    > JF Mezei wrote:
    >> Right now, Linux is being used for the "One Laptop per Child" projects
    >> around the world.
    >>
    >> Microsoft, not wanting to be left out, has setup a team of 40 people
    >> trying to fit Windows and office on 1gig (they can't) so now they will
    >> pay for flash cards and the hardware needed to be added on the cheap
    >> laptops, and they still are having problems fitting the bloat that is
    >> Windows onto those cards. And they will also need to update the laptop's
    >> firmware to support booting from the additional flashcards.
    >>
    >> Just imagine if many years ago, VMS management had listened to Mr
    >> Dachtera and ported VMS to the then 32 bit 8086. Today, they could load
    >> VMS on those laptops with space to spare simply because VMS engineers
    >> have always been fairly mature, efficient and frugal in system resources
    >> needed to run their software. It would have paid off big time if VMS had
    >> been selected to be the OS of choice for those laptops all around the
    >> world. (put in Mosaic, update MAIL and DECWRITE and you're set).
    >>
    >> It, way too late now, of course.
    >>
    >> But it is interesting to see Microsoft struggle with this and hopefully
    >> they will fail and millions of kids around the world will learn Linux first.

    >
    > Quite so, but it wouldn't have been too much of an effort to convert
    > e.g. the VAXstation 4000-VLC into a laptop case. There was about
    > everything needed on a main board with only one daughter card (the
    > graphichs card). If the SIMM sockets would have been inclined, it would
    > have been ready for putting into a laptop case.
    > I think it would have been better to make a VAX laptop than trying to
    > fit VMS on every other possible hardware combination. That would never
    > have made it worth while. There is way too much work and the result
    > would be too uncertain.
    >
    > In mid 90's there was built a AlphaBook, as you surely know, but for
    > some reason it never became popular. IMHO the reason was exactly what
    > you mentioned; VMS vas not made available early enough on laptops.


    BUt it would have lacked the most important part needed for this
    program. A price low enough to give away a million of them. The
    recently released EeePC is $300-400 and it is not part of this
    program because it is being sold at a profit. You can figure the
    likely real cost from this. What would a VAX laptop or an Alphabook
    cost? And we need not even go into the shortcomings of VMS for a
    project like this.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  5. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > likely real cost from this. What would a VAX laptop or an Alphabook
    > cost? And we need not even go into the shortcomings of VMS for a
    > project like this.



    The OLPC machines are designed to be inexpensive and robust. They were a
    real challenge to design/build. They do not have a hard disk, they have
    flash disk. (makes unit far more robust).

    Obviously, a 1990s Digital would have genetically been unwilling to
    start a project for a really cheap vax/alpha.

    But when you look at the current technology and prices, surely it should
    be possible today to build some cheap machine that can run VMS.

    Remember that there are probably a gazillion tax breaks for those
    building the machine so their costs are even lower. This is all part of
    a humanitarian project.

    Say VAX had continued to be developped and Digital had become succesful
    again. (just for sake of dicsussion). Say current vaxes ran at 3ghz in a
    45nm process.

    Those laptops could be using vaxes from 2 generations back, or used the
    rejects from current production and set at 1ghz instead of 3.

    Real laptops today cost a lot because, as a status symbol, they are
    built with as many features as possible, and all suppliers charge a
    premium for the smaller devices because they know it is to be integrated
    into a "luxury" device with high price markup.

    But when you get industries to cooperate on a humanitarian project, I
    suspect that all those artificial markups go away and those small
    components all of a sudden become quite affordable.

    Also, those OLPC laptops use much older LCD screens (not even sure of
    they are colour). This means that pproducing them doesn't use up
    production lines dedicated to hgh value LCD screens. And it also
    explains a big cost difference between those laptops and "business"
    laptops that use state of the art LCD displays.

    So, If Digital existed today and decided to participate in that project,
    I am sure they could build a very low cost vax or even alpha. Could the
    alpha be build/configured to be used as a 32 bit machine ? (aka:
    requires far less RAM to run and its executables would be smaller) ?

  6. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    On Dec 8, 7:31 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > In article <475a7ef1$0$27828$9b536...@news.fv.fi>,
    > Uusimäki writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > > JF Mezei wrote:
    > >> Right now, Linux is being used for the "One Laptop per Child" projects
    > >> around the world.

    >
    > >> Microsoft, not wanting to be left out, has setup a team of 40 people
    > >> trying to fit Windows and office on 1gig (they can't) so now they will
    > >> pay for flash cards and the hardware needed to be added on the cheap
    > >> laptops, and they still are having problems fitting the bloat that is
    > >> Windows onto those cards. And they will also need to update the laptop's
    > >> firmware to support booting from the additional flashcards.

    >
    > >> Just imagine if many years ago, VMS management had listened to Mr
    > >> Dachtera and ported VMS to the then 32 bit 8086. Today, they could load
    > >> VMS on those laptops with space to spare simply because VMS engineers
    > >> have always been fairly mature, efficient and frugal in system resources
    > >> needed to run their software. It would have paid off big time if VMS had
    > >> been selected to be the OS of choice for those laptops all around the
    > >> world. (put in Mosaic, update MAIL and DECWRITE and you're set).

    >
    > >> It, way too late now, of course.

    >
    > >> But it is interesting to see Microsoft struggle with this and hopefully
    > >> they will fail and millions of kids around the world will learn Linux first.

    >
    > > Quite so, but it wouldn't have been too much of an effort to convert
    > > e.g. the VAXstation 4000-VLC into a laptop case. There was about
    > > everything needed on a main board with only one daughter card (the
    > > graphichs card). If the SIMM sockets would have been inclined, it would
    > > have been ready for putting into a laptop case.
    > > I think it would have been better to make a VAX laptop than trying to
    > > fit VMS on every other possible hardware combination. That would never
    > > have made it worth while. There is way too much work and the result
    > > would be too uncertain.

    >
    > > In mid 90's there was built a AlphaBook, as you surely know, but for
    > > some reason it never became popular. IMHO the reason was exactly what
    > > you mentioned; VMS vas not made available early enough on laptops.

    >
    > BUt it would have lacked the most important part needed for this
    > program. A price low enough to give away a million of them. The
    > recently released EeePC is $300-400 and it is not part of this
    > program because it is being sold at a profit. You can figure the
    > likely real cost from this. What would a VAX laptop or an Alphabook
    > cost? And we need not even go into the shortcomings of VMS for a
    > project like this.
    >
    > bill
    >
    > --
    > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    > b...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    > University of Scranton |
    > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include


    The problem with this argument is that it is comparing apples to
    oranges. Are regular Linux or Windows or Mac laptops currently cheap
    enough to give away? NO! That's apples to apples (and Apples!). The
    question how much it would cost if one went through the same procedure
    to make cheap VMS laptops. Remember, while these laptops are very
    cheap and have some capabilities regular laptops lack, they are very
    limited compared to regular laptops in other ways. And keep in mind
    the assumption that VMS would have already been ported to the
    appropriate architecture, etc., etc., You can't assume what would it
    cost to do this now. That was not the point. (Another level of apples
    to oranges!).

    Just what shortcomings were you thinking of?

    AEF

  7. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    In article ,
    JF Mezei writes:
    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> likely real cost from this. What would a VAX laptop or an Alphabook
    >> cost? And we need not even go into the shortcomings of VMS for a
    >> project like this.

    >
    >
    > The OLPC machines are designed to be inexpensive and robust. They were a
    > real challenge to design/build. They do not have a hard disk, they have
    > flash disk. (makes unit far more robust).


    As does the ASUS EeePC. Mine has 4GB. You can install XP on it with no
    problem although it is a little cramped. Of course, the next version is
    going to come out with 8GB so XP will be very doable. One can only hope
    people have enough sense to not do it.

    >
    > Obviously, a 1990s Digital would have genetically been unwilling to
    > start a project for a really cheap vax/alpha.
    >
    > But when you look at the current technology and prices, surely it should
    > be possible today to build some cheap machine that can run VMS.


    Yeah, but what chance would it have being unleashed on the masses (and
    inparticular, un-educated and mostly semi-literate masses who are the
    primary target for this project) without a really good GUI and point-
    and-click applications?

    >
    > Remember that there are probably a gazillion tax breaks for those
    > building the machine so their costs are even lower. This is all part of
    > a humanitarian project.


    Most organizations like this don't pay taxes so there is no additional
    tax break because of what they are doing. The big savings is in not
    needing to make a profit to please your stockholders. But then, that
    hasn't detered HP from flushing a profit center like VMS down the toilet.

    >
    > Say VAX had continued to be developped and Digital had become succesful
    > again. (just for sake of dicsussion). Say current vaxes ran at 3ghz in a
    > 45nm process.
    >
    > Those laptops could be using vaxes from 2 generations back, or used the
    > rejects from current production and set at 1ghz instead of 3.


    And running what?

    >
    > Real laptops today cost a lot because, as a status symbol, they are
    > built with as many features as possible, and all suppliers charge a
    > premium for the smaller devices because they know it is to be integrated
    > into a "luxury" device with high price markup.


    Then why was mine less than $400?

    >
    > But when you get industries to cooperate on a humanitarian project, I
    > suspect that all those artificial markups go away and those small
    > components all of a sudden become quite affordable.


    Industries aren't intersted in "humanitarian projects" they are interested
    in making profits. If they don't, they don't remain industries for very
    long.

    >
    > Also, those OLPC laptops use much older LCD screens (not even sure of
    > they are colour). This means that pproducing them doesn't use up
    > production lines dedicated to hgh value LCD screens. And it also
    > explains a big cost difference between those laptops and "business"
    > laptops that use state of the art LCD displays.


    Mine has a very nice collor display, thank you. I doubt there is any
    savings today in not having color. Monochrome screens would have to
    be specially made as no one is using them. Not even my telephone. This
    would likely make them more expensive than color.

    >
    > So, If Digital existed today and decided to participate in that project,
    > I am sure they could build a very low cost vax or even alpha. Could the
    > alpha be build/configured to be used as a 32 bit machine ? (aka:
    > requires far less RAM to run and its executables would be smaller) ?


    Not even worth thinkin about......

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  8. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    Uusimäki schrieb:

    >
    > In mid 90's there was built a AlphaBook, as you surely know, but for
    > some reason it never became popular.


    Price ?
    There were also SparcBooks, PA-RISC books and RS/6000s as ThinkPads,
    running their respective UNIX,
    but they did not take off because they simply were too expensive
    for the average user.


  9. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    In article <0cb14cd4-c2c7-41c6-be7c-c07bc6dc8588@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
    AEF writes:
    > On Dec 8, 7:31 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    >> In article <475a7ef1$0$27828$9b536...@news.fv.fi>,
    >> Uusimäki writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > JF Mezei wrote:
    >> >> Right now, Linux is being used for the "One Laptop per Child" projects
    >> >> around the world.

    >>
    >> >> Microsoft, not wanting to be left out, has setup a team of 40 people
    >> >> trying to fit Windows and office on 1gig (they can't) so now they will
    >> >> pay for flash cards and the hardware needed to be added on the cheap
    >> >> laptops, and they still are having problems fitting the bloat that is
    >> >> Windows onto those cards. And they will also need to update the laptop's
    >> >> firmware to support booting from the additional flashcards.

    >>
    >> >> Just imagine if many years ago, VMS management had listened to Mr
    >> >> Dachtera and ported VMS to the then 32 bit 8086. Today, they could load>> >> VMS on those laptops with space to spare simply because VMS engineers
    >> >> have always been fairly mature, efficient and frugal in system resources
    >> >> needed to run their software. It would have paid off big time if VMS had
    >> >> been selected to be the OS of choice for those laptops all around the
    >> >> world. (put in Mosaic, update MAIL and DECWRITE and you're set).

    >>
    >> >> It, way too late now, of course.

    >>
    >> >> But it is interesting to see Microsoft struggle with this and hopefully>> >> they will fail and millions of kids around the world will learn Linux first.

    >>
    >> > Quite so, but it wouldn't have been too much of an effort to convert
    >> > e.g. the VAXstation 4000-VLC into a laptop case. There was about
    >> > everything needed on a main board with only one daughter card (the
    >> > graphichs card). If the SIMM sockets would have been inclined, it would
    >> > have been ready for putting into a laptop case.
    >> > I think it would have been better to make a VAX laptop than trying to
    >> > fit VMS on every other possible hardware combination. That would never
    >> > have made it worth while. There is way too much work and the result
    >> > would be too uncertain.

    >>
    >> > In mid 90's there was built a AlphaBook, as you surely know, but for
    >> > some reason it never became popular. IMHO the reason was exactly what
    >> > you mentioned; VMS vas not made available early enough on laptops.

    >>
    >> BUt it would have lacked the most important part needed for this
    >> program. A price low enough to give away a million of them. The
    >> recently released EeePC is $300-400 and it is not part of this
    >> program because it is being sold at a profit. You can figure the
    >> likely real cost from this. What would a VAX laptop or an Alphabook
    >> cost? And we need not even go into the shortcomings of VMS for a
    >> project like this.
    >>
    >> bill
    >>
    >> --
    >> Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves>> b...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    >> University of Scranton |
    >> Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

    > The problem with this argument is that it is comparing apples to
    > oranges.


    How so?

    > Are regular Linux or Windows or Mac laptops currently cheap
    > enough to give away? NO!


    OLPC is not giving away "regular Linux or Windows or Mac laptops"
    it is giving away OLPC Laptops. My ASUS EeePC IS a "regular Linux"
    laptop and it can run Windows as well. And, even with the need to
    make a profit it is selling for less than $400. Real cost is probably
    in the neighborhood of around $200.

    > That's apples to apples (and Apples!). The
    > question how much it would cost if one went through the same procedure
    > to make cheap VMS laptops.


    Well, if you want to be pedantic, I can run VMS on my EeePC. Just load
    SIMH and then load VMS. The question being who would want to? It would
    definitely not fit the criteria for the OLPC program.

    > Remember, while these laptops are very
    > cheap and have some capabilities regular laptops lack, they are very
    > limited compared to regular laptops in other ways.


    I would need to look at the actual specs for the OLPC laptops, but I
    really can't see where they would be lacking any needed funtionality.
    My cheap EeePC has all the capabilities of my IBM Thinkpad and comes
    pre-configured to do a lot of things that took considerable adjustment
    to do on the Thinkpad.

    > And keep in mind
    > the assumption that VMS would have already been ported to the
    > appropriate architecture, etc., etc., You can't assume what would it
    > cost to do this now. That was not the point. (Another level of apples
    > to oranges!).
    > Just what shortcomings were you thinking of?


    The total lack of a usable interface and the necessary applications for
    it to be usable by the target audience.

    bill


    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  10. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    On 2007-12-08, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > In article ,
    > JF Mezei writes:
    >> Those laptops could be using vaxes from 2 generations back, or used the
    >> rejects from current production and set at 1ghz instead of 3.


    Seems to me that newer chips are more power efficient than older ones.
    If the goal is to build something that can last a while and use little
    power, you'd want to use the latest technology.

    >> Real laptops today cost a lot because, as a status symbol, they are
    >> built with as many features as possible, and all suppliers charge a
    >> premium for the smaller devices because they know it is to be integrated
    >> into a "luxury" device with high price markup.

    >
    > Then why was mine less than $400?


    I think he's trying to say the Eee PC isn't a "real" laptop.

    >> Also, those OLPC laptops use much older LCD screens (not even sure of
    >> they are colour). This means that pproducing them doesn't use up
    >> production lines dedicated to hgh value LCD screens. And it also
    >> explains a big cost difference between those laptops and "business"
    >> laptops that use state of the art LCD displays.


    No, actually, they don't. The LCD in the OLPC uses a new technology
    created for the OLPC folks and is one of the reasons the machine took so
    long to come out.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC_XO-1#Display
    --
    roger ivie
    rivie@ridgenet.net

  11. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    On 2007-12-08, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > I would need to look at the actual specs for the OLPC laptops, but I
    > really can't see where they would be lacking any needed funtionality.


    As I understand, the functionality concerns involve the limited amount
    of RAM (OLPC is 256MB, Eee PC is 512MB; I don't think the OLPC RAM is in
    a socket) and simple flash (i.e., the OS has to manage wear levels
    because the flash doesn't do it; you can't just load any old OS up and
    expect it to be able to use the flash as a disk).o
    --
    roger ivie
    rivie@ridgenet.net

  12. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    In article ,
    Roger Ivie writes:
    > On 2007-12-08, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> In article ,
    >> JF Mezei writes:
    >>> Those laptops could be using vaxes from 2 generations back, or used the
    >>> rejects from current production and set at 1ghz instead of 3.

    >
    > Seems to me that newer chips are more power efficient than older ones.
    > If the goal is to build something that can last a while and use little
    > power, you'd want to use the latest technology.
    >
    >>> Real laptops today cost a lot because, as a status symbol, they are
    >>> built with as many features as possible, and all suppliers charge a
    >>> premium for the smaller devices because they know it is to be integrated
    >>> into a "luxury" device with high price markup.

    >>
    >> Then why was mine less than $400?

    >
    > I think he's trying to say the Eee PC isn't a "real" laptop.


    Yeah, but JF saying it doesn't make it fact. :-)

    >
    >>> Also, those OLPC laptops use much older LCD screens (not even sure of
    >>> they are colour). This means that pproducing them doesn't use up
    >>> production lines dedicated to hgh value LCD screens. And it also
    >>> explains a big cost difference between those laptops and "business"
    >>> laptops that use state of the art LCD displays.

    >
    > No, actually, they don't. The LCD in the OLPC uses a new technology
    > created for the OLPC folks and is one of the reasons the machine took so
    > long to come out.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC_XO-1#Display


    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  13. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    In article ,
    Roger Ivie writes:
    > On 2007-12-08, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> I would need to look at the actual specs for the OLPC laptops, but I
    >> really can't see where they would be lacking any needed funtionality.

    >
    > As I understand, the functionality concerns involve the limited amount
    > of RAM (OLPC is 256MB, Eee PC is 512MB; I don't think the OLPC RAM is in
    > a socket) and simple flash (i.e., the OS has to manage wear levels
    > because the flash doesn't do it; you can't just load any old OS up and
    > expect it to be able to use the flash as a disk).o


    I assume you mean for the OLPC as the EeePC loads Linux, Windows or even
    BSD. The only things lacking at this stage are network and display drivers
    for BSD. Linux works fine and so does XP.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  14. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    On 2007-12-08, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > In article ,
    >> I think he's trying to say the Eee PC isn't a "real" laptop.

    >
    > Yeah, but JF saying it doesn't make it fact. :-)


    Yeah, I'm aware of that. I've had mine since Tuesday and am totally
    smitten. The thing is very nifty.
    --
    roger ivie
    rivie@ridgenet.net

  15. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    On 2007-12-08, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Roger Ivie writes:
    >> On 2007-12-08, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >>> I would need to look at the actual specs for the OLPC laptops, but I
    >>> really can't see where they would be lacking any needed funtionality.

    >>
    >> As I understand, the functionality concerns involve the limited amount
    >> of RAM (OLPC is 256MB, Eee PC is 512MB; I don't think the OLPC RAM is in
    >> a socket) and simple flash (i.e., the OS has to manage wear levels
    >> because the flash doesn't do it; you can't just load any old OS up and
    >> expect it to be able to use the flash as a disk).o

    >
    > I assume you mean for the OLPC as the EeePC loads Linux, Windows or even
    > BSD. The only things lacking at this stage are network and display drivers
    > for BSD.


    Yep. I loaded up NetBSD 3.1 on mine as an experiment yesterday. Didn't
    get as far as bringing up X; I was running off an SD and wasn't terribly
    thrilled with the SD performance. I'll give it another go when the
    network drivers get sorted out.

    > Linux works fine and so does XP.


    Running XP on mine. Legally as soon as UPS delivers my extra RAM and
    non-dodgy XP. I wouldn't need the extra RAM if I didn't want to run
    World of Warcraft.
    --
    roger ivie
    rivie@ridgenet.net

  16. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    JF Mezei schrieb:

    > So, If Digital existed today and decided to participate in that project,
    > I am sure they could build a very low cost vax or even alpha.


    They weren't able to build a cost- and speed-competitive VAX
    back then when it would have been essential for their own survival.
    So why should they be able to do so for just a "humanitarian" project ?



  17. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    In article , JF Mezei
    writes:

    > Right now, Linux is being used for the "One Laptop per Child" projects
    > around the world.


    Whenever I hear about this nonsense, I wish all of these self-appointed
    gurus would read Cliff Stoll.


  18. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
    > In article , JF Mezei
    > writes:
    >
    >
    >>Right now, Linux is being used for the "One Laptop per Child" projects
    >>around the world.

    >
    >
    > Whenever I hear about this nonsense, I wish all of these self-appointed
    > gurus would read Cliff Stoll.
    >


    Do you mean "The Cuckoo's Egg"? A great book, but how is it relevant?
    (I'm not familiar with "One Laptop per Child".)



  19. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    Michael Kraemer wrote:
    > Uusimäki schrieb:
    >
    >>
    >> In mid 90's there was built a AlphaBook, as you surely know, but for
    >> some reason it never became popular.

    >
    > Price ?
    > There were also SparcBooks, PA-RISC books and RS/6000s as ThinkPads,
    > running their respective UNIX,
    > but they did not take off because they simply were too expensive
    > for the average user.
    >


    Most probably, yes. I don't remember the exact prices, but I don't think
    the price difference between a X86 laptop and an AlphaBook was so huge.
    IIRC the high end X86 laptops were also expensive at that time.

    But, like I mentioned, there would have probably been a better market if
    the VMS-enabled laptops were created a lot earlier - maybe in late 80's.

    Regards,

    Kari

  20. Re: OT: One Laptop per Child

    Michael Kraemer wrote:
    > They weren't able to build a cost- and speed-competitive VAX
    > back then when it would have been essential for their own survival.
    > So why should they be able to do so for just a "humanitarian" project ?


    It isn't that they weren't "able". It is that their management decisions
    didn't result in low cost competitively priced machines. I am sure
    Digital Equipment Corporation had the brains and ability to produce
    competitive equipment had top management tasked its troups to make it so.

    My original point was that because VMS engineers had managed to prevent
    bloat over the years, VMS would now be considered a great OS for those
    resource-limited OLPC laptops.

    And if VMS had been made available on a viable platform, its limited
    footprint would have also made it quite interesting for lots of embedded
    applications. Imagine if Nokia had chosen VMS as kernel for its handsets
    instead of buying the leftovers from PSION's OS.

    Consider VMS still able to run on a 16 meg all-mighty Microvax II. I
    think my phone requires more memory to boot :-)

    In terms of profits: This laptop project is a humanitarian project. A
    company that charges a reduced price for parts gets to claim
    humanitarian donation and gets the pR benefits for it.

    If Microsoft succeeds in shoving windows down kids' throats, do you
    really think that it will charge a fee for those windows licences ?
    It will be all PR for microsoft, the ability to claim Microsoft is using
    its wealth to help poor kids etc etc. (There is nothing wrong with this,
    just pointing out that large copration participating in this endeavour
    do so not for profit, but as humanitarian aid).

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast